Dworkin, Emily

Abstract Introduction: Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations are observed in ~20% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In the U.S., ivosidenib (ivo) is approved with or without azacitidine (aza) in the frontline (FL) and as monotherapy in relapsed/refractory (R/R) IDH1-mutated (mut) AML. Olutasidenib (oluta) is approved as monotherapy for R/R IDH1-mut AML. Enasidenib (ena) is approved as monotherapy for R/R IDH2-mut AML. This study describes real-world IDH inhibitor (IDHi) administration patterns and evaluates their outcomes in on-label settings. Methods: A retrospective review of patients with IDH1/2-mut AML who received ivosidenib, olutasidenib, or enasidenib was conducted at 12 academic institutions in the U.S. Best response at any time during treatment, including complete response (CR) and complete response with partial hematologic recovery (CRh), were graded using European Leukemia Net (ELN) 2022 criteria. Results: A total of 387 patients with IDH1- and IDH2-mut AML were treated with an IDHi in the FL or R/R setting. Median follow-up was 9.6 months (range, 0.03-90.7). Demographics include 79% White, 14% Black, 3% Asian, and 4% other/unknown race; 5% were Hispanic ethnicity; 46% were female; the median age was 70 years (range, 28-95). 70% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, 26% had secondary AML, and 10% had therapy-related AML. Per the ELN 2024 less-Intensive risk classification, 58% were favorable risk, 29% intermediate, 7% adverse, and 6% unknown. Overall, 209 of 387 patients (54%) received IDHi regimens on-label. In FL IDH1-mut AML (n=45), 11 received ivo monotherapy, 25 aza/ivo, and 9 used off-label combinations: 3 hypomethylating agent (HMA) + venetoclax (ven) + ivo, 5 decitabine/ivo, 1 intensive chemotherapy (IC)/ivo. Among R/R IDH1-mut AML (n=109), 47 received ivo monotherapy, 7 oluta monotherapy, and 55 off-label (31 HMA/ivo, 16 HMA/ven/ivo, 3 IC/ivo, and 5 other). 44 received off-label ena for FL treatment of IDH2-mut AML (25 ena monotherapy, 9 HMA/ena, 8 HMA/ven/ena, and 2 IC/ena). In R/R IDH2-mut AML (n=189), 119 patients received ena monotherapy and 70 received off-label combinations (25 HMA/ena, 30 HMA/ven/ena, 7 IC/ena, 6 ena/gilteritinib, and 2 other). In on-label treatment of FL IDH1-mut AML, one of four patients with response assessment of FL ivo monotherapy had a CR/CRh. Of 19 patients with response assessment on FL aza/ivo, 13 patients (68.4%) had a CR as best response (95% CI, 46.0-84.6%). Median OS was 14.9 mo (95% CI, 4.17-NR) for ivo monotherapy (n=11) and 31.9 mo (95% CI, 9.1-NR) for aza/ivo (n=25), with 0 and 2 patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT), respectively. In R/R IDH1-mut AML, the rate of CR/CRh was 35.5% (95% CI, 21.1-53.1) for on-label ivo monotherapy. All 4 patients with response assessment for on-label oluta monotherapy had a CR. Median OS was 14.0 mo (95% CI, 10.1-22.4) for ivo monotherapy and NR for oluta monotherapy (95% CI, 10.1-NR), with 10 and 0 receiving allo-SCT, respectively. The CR/CRh rate for ivo was 38.1% (8 of 21 assessed; 95% CI, 20.8-59.1) in age < 70, and 30.0% (3 of 10 assessed; 95% CI, 10.8-60.3) in age ≥ 70. Median OS was 15.2 mo (95% CI 9.3-NR) in age < 70 (n=27) and 10.4 mo (95% CI 8.0-18) in age ≥ 70 (n=20). In R/R IDH2-mut AML, the rate of CR/CRh for on-label ena monotherapy was 38.2% (95% CI, 27.6-50.1). Median OS was 12.1 mo (95% CI, 8.2-16.6), with 5 having received allo-SCT. In demographic subgroups for ena monotherapy, 52 non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients with response assessment had a CR/CRh rate of 42.3% (95% CI, 0.30-0.56). Only 1 of 13 non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients with response assessment had a CRh (7.7%; 95% CI, 1.4-33.0) as best response, with none attaining CR. Median OS was 13.7 mo (95% CI 10.3-26.3) in NHW (n=82), 11.2 mo (95% CI, 6.1-NR) in NHB (n=18), and 69.1 mo (95% CI, 52.6-NR) in Hispanic patients (n=8). The CR/CRh rate was 48.6% (17 of 35 assessed; 95% CI, 33.0-64.4) for age < 70, and 27.3% (9 of 33 assessed; 95% CI, 15.1-44.2) for age ≥ 70. Median OS was 12.0 mo (95% CI, 9.9-22.1) in age < 70 (n=48) and 5.8 mo (95% CI, 4.1-8.7) in age ≥ 70 (n=69). Conclusion: Practice patterns for IDH inhibitors in AML vary considerably, with high amounts of off-label use. Response rates for ivosidenib and enasidenib in the real-world setting are comparable to those of clinical trials. Descriptive analyses of demographic subgroups highlight areas in need of further research.

Abstract Background: Hypomethylating agent (HMA) with venetoclax (VEN) is used in clinical practice for frontline management of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) based on encouraging data from phase 1 clinical trial (Garcia JS et al. Blood 2025). While the randomized clinical trial (VERONA-NCT04401748) did not show a survival benefit of azacitidine-VEN, the study had important differences such as exclusion of therapy related MDS and being conducted in several non-academic US centers. To better understand the impact of this regimen and its effects in subgroups, we conducted a real-world analysis of frontline MDS patients treated mainly at academic medical centers with HMA-VEN and compared to HMA monotherapy. Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective study of 19 US academic medical centers. We included contemporary cohorts of adults (age≥18 years) with MDS (intermediate, high or very high risk by IPSS-R) who were treated outside of clinical trials with either upfront combination of HMA-VEN or HMA monotherapy. Data on patient-related, disease-related and treatment-related variables were collected through chart review. Descriptive statistics were used for baseline characteristics. Overall survival (OS) and event free survival (EFS: progression, leukemic transformation, death as events) analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier method. Determinants of outcomes were analyzed using multivariable regression models. All analyses were conducted at a significance level of p<0.05. Results: Among 1198 patients with intermediate, high or very-high risk MDS, 313 patients received upfront VEN in combination with HMA [HMA-VEN] and 885 patients received HMA monotherapy. Median age was 70 (63-76) years and majority of patients had MDS with excess blasts-1 (34% overall, HMA-VEN=26%, HMA=37%) or MDS with excess-blasts-2 (41% overall, HMA-VEN=60%, HMA=34%). Disease risk by IPSS-R was intermediate (29% overall, HMA-VEN=18%, HMA=33%), high (30% overall, HMA-VEN=31%, HMA=30%) or very-high risk (41% overall, HMA-VEN=51%, HMA=37%, p<0.001). Therapy related MDS (t-MDS) was seen in 27% of patients (HMA-VEN=33%, HMA=25%, p=0.004), 34% had TP53 mutation (HMA-VEN=40%, HMA=32%, p=0.005) and 33% underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) (HMA-VEN=42%, HMA=30%, p<0.001). The most common mutations detected at baseline included TP53 (34%), ASXL1 (22%), DNMT3A (16%), RUNX1 (16%), TET2 (14%), SRSF2 (13%), and U2AF1 (11%). The response rate by IWG 2006 criteria was significantly higher with HMA-VEN than HMA monotherapy (overall 81% vs 39%, CR: 17% vs 9.6%; marrow CR: 56% vs 14%, p<0.001). In multivariable analysis accounting for upfront treatment, AHSCT, genomic mutations, baseline bone marrow blasts and t-MDS, patients treated with HMA-VEN in the upfront setting had significantly improved EFS (median EFS 10.7 vs. 7.8 mon, HR 0.83, 95%CI 0.72-0.96, p=0.01) and OS (median OS 22.4 vs. 18.1 mon, HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.64-0.97, p=0.02). In addition, TP53 mutation status (OS: HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.57-2.26, p<0.001, EFS: HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.23-1.65, p<0.001), subsequent AHSCT (OS: HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.27-0.41, p<0.001; EFS: HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.40-0.54, p<0.001), and therapy related MDS (OS: HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.00-1.44, p=0.04, EFS: HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.96-1.27, p=0.2) were significant predictors on multivariable analysis. When separately investigated in subgroups, an OS benefit of HMA-VEN over HMA was seen in patients undergoing subsequent AHSCT (median OS 40.6 vs. 30 mon, p=0.05), bone marrow blast 10-19% (median OS 25.1 vs. 17.4 mon, P=0.01), de novo MDS (median OS 30 vs. 20.1 mon, P=0.003) and absence of TP53 mutation (median OS 34.9 mon vs. 23.1 mon, p=0.004). The benefit of HMA-VEN over HMA was also seen across molecular mutations including presence of ASXL1 mutation (median OS 35.2 vs 20.9 mon, p=0.03). Conclusions: In this large multicenter retrospective analysis from US academic medical centers, we found that HMA-VEN therapy significantly improved OS in certain subsets of high risk MDS including patients with 10-19% blasts, denovo MDS, subsequent AHSCT and those without TP53 mutation. While our analysis is limited by its retrospective design, prospectively exploring subgroups of MDS patients who could benefit from HMA-VEN therapy is needed.

ABSTRACT Patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (ND‐AML) derive variable survival benefit from venetoclax + hypomethylating agent (Ven‐HMA) therapy. The primary objective in the current study was to develop genetic risk models that are predictive of survival and are applicable at the time of diagnosis and after establishing treatment response. Among 400 ND‐AML patients treated with Ven‐HMA at the Mayo Clinic, 247 (62%) achieved complete remission with (CR) or without (CRi) count recovery. Multivariable analysis–derived hazard ratios (HR), including 1.8 for European LeukemiaNet (ELN) adverse karyotype, 4.7 for KMT2Ar , 1.7 for TP53 MUT , 2.6 for KRAS MUT , and 2.1 for IDH2 WT were applied to develop an HR‐weighted risk model: low, intermediate, and high; respective median survival censored for allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT) (3‐year survival) were “not reached” (67%), 19.1 (33%), and 7.1 months (0%). In patients achieving CR/CRi, adverse karyotype, KMT2Ar , KRAS MUT , IDH2 WT predicted inferior survival, allowing for a complementary response‐stratified risk model. The model was externally validated and was shown to be superior to the ELN 2024 risk model (AIC 179 vs. 195 and AUC 0.77 vs. 0.69). Survival was inferior with failure to achieve CR/CRi or not receiving ASCT; 3‐year survival for high‐risk with or without ASCT was 42% versus 0% ( p < 0.01); intermediate 72% versus 43% ( p = 0.06); and low‐risk 88% versus 78% ( p = 0.53). The Mayo genetic risk models offer pre‐treatment and response‐based prognostic tools for ND‐AML treated with Ven‐HMA. The current study underscores the prognostically indispensable role of achieving CR/CRi and ASCT.

Background: Hypomethylating agents (HMA) with venetoclax (VEN) have shown encouraging clinical efficacy in single arm clinical trials for patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) (Garcia JS et al. ASH 2023, Zeidan AM et al. Am J Hematol. 2023). Many centers have started utilizing HMA-VEN in the clinical management of MDS due to unmet need, pending results of the ongoing phase 3 randomized clinical trial (VERONA) using this combination. However, real world studies with large sample size investigating the use of these agents in MDS, practice patterns and clinical outcomes are lacking. Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective study of 13 US academic medical centers. We included contemporary cohorts of adults (age≥18 years) with MDS who were treated with upfront combination of HMA-VEN, upfront HMA monotherapy, or VEN added after inadequate response or progression on HMA (post-HMA failure VEN). Outcomes analyzed includes clinical response, adverse events (AE) of interest, dose administration and survival. Descriptive statistics were used for baseline characteristics. Overall survival and event free survival (EFS: progression, leukemic transformation, death as events) analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier method. Determinants of outcomes were analyzed using multivariable regression models. All analyses were conducted at a significance level of p&lt;0.05. Results: Among 454 patients included, 258 patients received VEN in combination with HMA [upfront HMA-VEN (n=175), post-HMA failure VEN (n=83)] and 196 patients received HMA monotherapy. Median age was 69 (59-77) years and majority of patients had MDS with excess blasts (75%), high risk (31.9%) or very-high (41.8%) risk disease by IPSS-R, 23.7% had therapy related disease, 33% had deletion17p or TP53 mutation and 40.9% underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation. VEN was predominantly started in outpatient setting (78.6%) with tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) prophylaxis and VEN doses ranged from 70-400mg, adjusted for concomitant antifungal drugs. Incidence of TLS was minimal (No TLS- 92.9%, lab-only TLS 6.2%, 1 pt with clinical TLS). Neutropenic fever was the main AE noted [upfront VEN-HMA (34.2%), HMA monotherapy (22.5%), post-HMA VEN (44.5%)]. In the upfront setting, response rate was significantly higher with HMA-VEN than HMA monotherapy (CR: 33% vs 12%; marrow CR: 40% vs 27%, p&lt;.001). VEN given in the post HMA failure setting also resulted in encouraging response rates (CR 10%, marrow CR 32%). After adjusting for covariates in multivariable analysis, patients treated with HMA-VEN in the upfront setting had significantly improved event free survival as compared to HMA monotherapy (HR 0.59, HR 0.44-0.78, p&lt;0.01), but overall survival did not reach statistical significance (overall survival HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.57-1.04, p=0.08). Conclusions: In this large multicenter retrospective analysis from US academic medical centers, we found that VEN in combination with HMA resulted in encouraging clinical outcomes and was effectively administered in the outpatient setting with minimal TLS. Infection risk management and supportive measures would be important to improve the ability to use this treatment widely, pending results of the ongoing phase 3 randomized clinical trial. Updated results with additional variables will be available at the main meeting.

Background: Hypomethylating agent (HMA) and venetoclax (Ven) frontline therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is astandard of care for patients (pts) deemed to be poor candidates for intensive induction due to age or fitness. However, given its attractive risk-benefit ratio, there is an increasing interest to extend the preference for HMA + Ven to other pts, including those who are fit for intensive therapy but with adverse risk disease. Unfortunately, most pts treated in this fashion will require future therapies for relapsed/refractory (R/R) disease and intensive therapy is given consideration mostly for pts with a path to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHCT). Little is known about the outcomes of pts who receive intensive induction therapy after use of a frontline less-intensive regimen in the modern era. In this multi-center study, we seek to describe the experience with such a patient population and identify predictors of differential clinical outcomes. Methods: We conducted a multi-center, retrospective study of pts with AML treated with frontline less-intensive chemotherapy, followed by intensive induction chemotherapy for R/R disease. We first described the baseline characteristics of this cohort. Nominal variables were summarized with frequency and percentage while continuous variables were summarized with median and interquartile range (IQR). Overall response rate (ORR) was defined as complete remission (CR), complete remission with incomplete count recovery, or morphologic leukemia free state. Differences in ORR were analyzed with Fisher's exact test for nominal variables and Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for continuous variables. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine median overall survival (OS) after induction chemotherapy. Log-rank testing and Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine survival differences for nominal and continuous variables, respectively. Statistical significance was determined as p-value &lt;0.05. Results: A total of 23 pts were included in this study. Median age at diagnosis was 64 years (IQR: 62-71). The majority of pts were male (n=12, 52%), white (n=20, 87%), and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 or 1 (n=18, 82%). The majority of pts (61%) at time of frontline therapy had AML arising out of MDS. As expected, the majority of pts had adverse risk ELN cytogenetics (n=16, 70%) with an enrichment for disease harboring TP53 mutation (n=6, 27%) and complex karyotype (n=9, 39%). Fifteen pts (65%) had frontline therapy with azacitidine backbone, 6 pts (26%) with decitabine; some pts received both before intensive therapy. The median number of cycles of frontline therapy was 2 (IQR: 2-5). Median WBC at time of R/R therapy was 1.9 x 10 9/L (IQR: 0.8-6.45), while hemoglobin was 8.4 g/dL (IQR: 7.5-9.45), platelets were 41 x 10 9/L (IQR: 19.5-116.5), and marrow blasts were 25% (IQR: 16.5-30%). The plurality of pts received CPX-351 as intensive R/R therapy (n=9, 39%). Other regimens included 7+3 (n=2, 9%), FLAG-Ida + Ven (n=2, 9%), HiDAC + Mitoxantrone +/- Ven (n=4, 17%) ( Table 1). ORR after intensive R/R therapy was 27% (n=6), with 23% achieving CR. CPX-351 after HMA + Ven was specifically associated with an ORR of 33% (CR rate 22%). Median OS after initiation was 5.8 months. Thirty- and 60-day mortality was 17% and 26%, respectively. Five patients (23%) proceeded to alloHCT ( Table 1). Univariate differences in response rate and median survival were analyzed for each of the aforementioned variables as illustrated in Table 1. While none of the covariates reached statistical significance for impacting ORR or OS, ECOG PS trended towards significantly impacting OS ( p=0.074) and the median OS among patients proceeding to alloHCT was numerically doubled (8.0 vs. 4.0 months, p=0.11) ( Figure 1). Conclusions: Intensive therapy for R/R AML after prior frontline less-intensive therapy was associated with an ORR rate of 27% and median OS of 5.8 months in our cohort. This approach may be an appropriate strategy for a subset of pts, particularly those eligible for alloHCT. The relatively small and heterogeneous nature of this cohort limits strong conclusions regarding efficacy. As the use of frontline HMA + Ven continues to expand, further studies with larger sample size are needed to determine which pts would and would not benefit from intensive induction therapy in the R/R setting.